165mm Lenses - Why Is It An Uncommon Focal Length?

[Flauvius]

Why are 165mm lenses so uncommon for use with 4x5 cameras? Also, given that the diagonal of 4x5 film is more in keeping with 165mm lenses, why are 150mm lenses so prevalent?

Flauvius

[vinny]

Check your ruler. Exposed film area on my film is 6" or 152mm.

[Vaughn]

Well, there it the 6.25" Wollie, which is 159mm, I believe. And there are the 180mm lenses. I suppose a 165mm would be too narrow of a step between the 150 and the 180 to be of great practical use. The lone Schneider SA 165 is an expensive beast.

[Mark Sampson]

Wollensak made some 162mm Raptars, both enlarging and camera lenses. Who knows why 150s and 180s were/are more popular... but most 'normal' focal length lenses have only a nominal relationship with the format diagonal. Although my first 35mm camera had a 45mm lens on it, close to the format diagonal of 44mm. But I could never tell any real difference between it and a 'normal' 50mm...

[Dan Fromm]

There've been a variety of ~ 160 mm lenses. B&L made 158 mm Tessars, I have a nice coated IIb. The #32 Kodak Anastigmat was a 162/4.5. Wollensak made 162/4.5 Raptars (tessar type) and, towards the end, a 160/5.6 plasmat type. Ilex seems to have preferred 6.5" (165 mm) to 6 3/8 (162). Goerz (NY) made 165/6.8 Dagors and Dogmars.

Look and you will find. In particular, look here: http://www.cameraeccentric.com/html/info/bj_3.html

[ic-racer]

Why are 165mm lenses so uncommon for use with 4x5 cameras?

The same reason 46mm lenses are rare on 35mm cameras?

[searover]

I have & use a 165 dagor from CP Gorez Berlin in a barrel mount on a MP-4 shutter that is awesome. It and a 168mm dagor design were standard on their 9x12 (4x5" metric) Tenax & Manufroc cameras. When exposed correctly, the back ground that is, it can give portraits the nicest out of focus background ever. I also can mount this barrel lens into a Nikon mount I made & really have fun.
Maybe the real reason is manufacturers were really competing with one another and not innovating into holes in an unproven market.

[DuncanD]

While 165mm LF lenses are indeed out of the mainstream, it is a focal length which appeals to me. I've owned and used 135, 150, 165, 180, 210, 240, and 250 for 4x5. Each of these is considered by some to be "normal" on 4x5.

I made what consider one of my best images with a Schnieder Angulon 165mm f/6.8 in Compur 1. The shutter was a pain since it had no stop-down lever and required all preparation in T. The lens was old modern (1950?) of ridiculously simple 6-in-2 construction and without the luxury of multi-coating. But the light it saw was delicious. However the focal length of 165mm was, as far as I know, largely irrelevant to that image quality.

[Vaughn]

There've been a variety of ~ 160 mm lenses...

I was thinking more along the lines of modern lenses such as on this list (with its lone 165mm):

http://www.largeformatphotography.in...s/LF4x5in.html

I had forgotten about some of the older lenses I have seen around 160mm. Thanks for the reminder.

[DuncanD]

I forgot to mention the tremendous movements with its 300mm image circle.